Sen. Tom Coburn * and other critics say that "Obama has proposed the most significant shift toward collectivism and away from capitalism in the history of our republic." What say you of this characterization?

Close

Send to a friend Sen. Tom Coburn * and other critics say that "Obama has proposed the most significant shift toward collectivism and away from capitalism in the history of our republic." What say you of this characterization?

Share this

To be a little more precise, the Obama shift is away from a market or consumer-driven economy toward a state-directed economy. In France, it is called "dirigisme", which was the prevailing concept of the 1970s and 1980s and still persists in the form of "national champions" to be protected from foreign ownership or competition, and the like. It is a French attitude of the government knowing best in all areas, which reached its high point under Louis XIV but has continued on today under a 'conservative' like Sarkozy. So if you would like a preview of the consequences, look abroad.

Allan MeltzerProfessor of Political Economy and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon :

There is not much relation between Pres. Obama's words and his actions. The talk is centrist, the actions leftist--social democratic perhaps. The administration forecasts 4% growth, above average. But the recovery will be slow, I believe. The president talks about investment but the administration program shifts resources toward heavily subsidized energy and healthcare. Better healthcare for all may increase well-being but it won't have much effect on productivity. Subsidized energy may also improve the quality of life with little effect on productivity growth. The president emphasizes his intention to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his term, but he neglects to say that it will be $800 or 900 billion.

The administration is running a race between the tax rate, the inflation rate and price controls. All three will win.

There is nothing surprising about how Obama, Reid and Pelosi are behaving. They are leaders of the modern Democrat party that is financed by and controlled by trial lawyers, labor union leaders and big city political machines. They control the campaign contributions and votes of those under the thumb of state power. This is why cities are most easily run by and for Democrat constituencies such as teachers unions (certainly not black parents or children). Every year the teachers union gets richer and the childrens’ education declines…Government workers and contactors get, taxpayers pay.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi are simply bringing the politics and ethics of Chicago to Washington D.C. In Chicago, you can move to the suburbs or Florida. Now we’re all screwed.

The stimulus package takes money from the private sector and hands it to the government spending sector. Hiring more government bureaucrats and funding for government contractors. If the economy had been humming along, Obama, Reid and Pelosi would have passed the same government giveaway package with a different justification.

The statists want to control the economy. Thirty years ago they said global cooling demanded the government ration energy and set its prices. Now global warming demands the same set of control and ration powers. For the past ten years there has not been the promised/threatened global warming so now “climate change” demands rationing and price controls.

The demands of the party of government haven’t changed. Now, however, they have their hands on the levers of power.

Coburn,Frum and Krauthammer fulminate because Obama and Congressional Democrats are determined to reorder tax policy and public expenditures. Over the years these three supported a range of policies that enhanced the wealth and power of the obscenely rich through tax cuts, deregulation (especially of the financial sector that led to the current financial meltdown) and reckless spending on the Iraq war and the bloated and increasingly privatized military. Now that the day of reckoning has arrived, they cry socialism!

Americans, however, are not stupid; they realize that Republicans prevented health care to the uninsured and encouraged our dependence on environmentally degrading oil and coal . Sen. Coburn touts himself as the watchdog of the public purse while ignoring the desperate condition of Oklahoma highways! Conservative ideologies like Frum and Krauthammer favor infusions of public funds to shore up the banks and yet oppose measures to address deplorable situations in housing and public education. Instead of mea culpas for the results of their perverse theories, we hear more of the same - hysterical bleating against Democrats for their efforts to restore some degree of economic justice and revitalization to a country on its knees thanks to their ideological folly. Fortunately, history has passed them by.

Call it spreading the wealth, socialism, or collectivism - but don't call it a surprise

President Obama's sweeping budget is a transformative attempt to shift the leverage in Washington from special interests to the striving middle class. As Democrats said throughout the campaigns of 2006 and 2008, these elections were referendums on the Bush -era trickle-down concentration of wealth and power to the top one percent of Americans. The voters rejected that shift and demanded change, opting to value work over wealth and promote growth through middle class tax cuts and serious investments in education, a clean energy economy, and universal health care. It took major tax cut spending for the top one percent to rise under Bush, and it will take major middle class tax cut spending and investment spending for 95 percent of American families struggling with higher tuition bills, job insecurity, and skyrocketing medical costs to get back on their feet and rise now. Call it spreading the wealth, socialism, or collectivism - but don't call it a surprise: this is exactly what President Obama, Vice President Biden, House Speaker Pelosi, and Congressional candidates promised on the campaign trail and exactly what we their voters expect them to deliver.

Senator Coburn calls the Obama administration moves "collectivism" (making it sound even more sinister than "socialism"), because he thinks the President wants "fairness" (horrors!). In contrast, Joel Kotkin labels Obama's economic rescue plans "collusive capitalism" because he thinks that the "elite" (including banks and universities) will benefit at the expense of -- you got it -- "fairness."When right and left join in attacking the same thing, we should take note because that might be a sign of centrism, showing that the Obama plans have "third way" potential. Yes, there are things to criticize.

Yes, there will be a shift in the social contract toward more attention to education, health, and social programs; that's what the American people voted for. But to say after 72 days that we have an historic sea-change is empty rhetoric. We have a crisis. Crises demand action. Heavyweight investors always intervene in the companies they invest in if they see that things are off course. The President has been forced by circumstances to act fast, while his preferred style seems to be deliberative, to weigh distinct alternatives and then find middle or common ground - the thread that runs through his book, The Audacity of Hope. But come on now, politicians and pundits, tune down the sloganeering. Or at least wait 172 days. We're not in the next election cycle yet.

The March employment numbers, out this morning, are bleak: 8.5 percent of Americans officially unemployed, 663,000 more jobs lost. But if you include people who are out of work and have given up trying to find a job, the real unemployment rate is 9 percent. And if you include people working part time who'd rather be working full time, it's now up to 15.6 percent. One in every six workers in America is now either unemployed or underemployed.

Every lost job has a multiplier effect throughout the economy. For every person who no longer has a job and can't find another, or is trying to enter the job market and can't find one, there are at least three job holders who become more anxious that they may lose their job. Almost every American right now is within two degrees of separation of someone who is out of work. This broader anxiety expresses itself as less willingness to spend money on anything other than necessities. And this reluctance to spend further contracts the economy, leading to more job losses.

Capital markets may or may not unfreeze under the combined heat of the Treasury and the Fed, but what happens to Wall Street is becoming less and less relevant to Main Street. Anxious Americans will not borrow even if credit is available to them. And ever fewer Americans are good credit risks anyway.

All this means that the real economy will need a larger stimulus than the $787 billion already enacted. To be sure, only a small fraction of the $787 billion has been turned into new jobs so far. The money is still moving out the door. But today's bleak jobs report shows that the economy is so far below its productive capacity that much more money will be needed.

This is still not the Great Depression of the 1930s, but it is a Depression. And the only way out is government spending on a very large scale. We should stop worrying about Wall Street. Worry about American workers. Use money to build up Main Street, and the future capacities of our workforce.

Energy independence and a non-carbon economy should be the equivalent of a war mobilization. Hire Americans to weatherize and insulate homes across the land. Don't encourage General Motors or any other auto company to shrink. Use the auto makers' spare capacity to make busses, new wind turbines, and electric cars (why let the Chinese best us on this?). Enlarge public transit systems.

Meanwhile, extend our educational infrastructure. So many young people are out of work that they should be using this time to improve their skills and capacities. Expand community colleges. Enlarge Pell Grants. Extend job-training opportunities to the unemployed, so they can learn new skills while they're collecting unemployment benefits.

Senator Coburn is right. President Obama is asking for a massive, huge increase in the role and size of the federal government – an increase that is on the scale of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and that exceeds Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Obama is doing this however at a time in human history when we should have learned from the failure of communism that socialism does not work – something people in FDR’s day did not know. Who would ever have thought when the Berlin Wall fell that we would live to see the leaders of Communist China and of France and Germany lecturing the United States about too much government spending and socialism! This is a sad day for the United States, and we will be paying the bills for this folly for decades to come.

The Bush administration as cowboy capitalists? Please. If you didn't see the Bush administration, supported by Senator Colburn, oversee an enormous expansion of federal bureaucracy, uncontrolled and unfocused government spending, invention of a gigantic cabinet department, wasteful military spending, and massive corporate bailouts, then you've been sound asleep since the turn of the century. Cowboy? No. Cattle call is more like it.

Meantime, economic crises or not, it's not debatable how urgent it is that we deal head on with our shabby national health care system and our doddering energy structure--right now, finally, at long last, after decades of obvious dithering. And, yes, that's a national need.

I'm happy, in response to some comments on today's Arena, to put my values clearly on display: I support government investment in long-term infrastructure for military defense and public transportation, universal health care, and a domestic and business economy powered by renewable energy sources. And I support government as a catalyst to
these overdue needs beginning today, April 3, 2009.

Therefore, as for Senator Coburn, I completely agree with him when he writes, "the challenges facing our country are too great for Congress to continue business as usual." His editorial is only a more senatorial-ized version of the rantings about collectivism--the language of which is just so 80s, is it not? Sometimes I can hear interesting, competitive, insightful governing ideas coming from the innovative thinkers on the right, but it is a big wilderness that American conservatives find themselves in, and it's often just too hard to hear what new ideas and fresh conservative governing philosophy is emerging when the loudest sound coming in off the wind from that political wasteland is "Socialist!" and "Communist!" Language like that...now that's cowboy talk, and if I can have a grip of some of it myself this morning, I say it's a trashy, intellectually-dishonest version of it, as well.

Dr. Coburn's diagnosis is flawed. Obama did inherit the mess but congressional Democrats had a hand in it. Leaders of congressional committees in the 110th Congress were not only asleep at the switch, they were not even aware there was a switch. As for the collectivism charge, consider Medicare Part D, a gigantic expansion of the scope of government and something of which Senator Coburn as a physician should be painfully aware.

There’s a lot of sleight of hand going on in the Obama administration. He’s mild-mannered and calm, but he’s proposing a radical agenda. He’s justifying that agenda in the name of dealing with an immediate economic crisis, but his sweeping proposals have nothing to do with the credit crunch or financial meltdown.

His $3.6 trillion budget – increasing federal spending half as much in one year as his spendthrift predecessor did in eight years – is bad enough, and taxpayers will be paying for it for years to come. What’s worse is the use of the budget to smuggle in nationalization of health care, education, and energy. And not just those industries, of course. The president is already operating as super-chairman of the automobile industry, hiring and firing executives and board members and directing what kinds of cars should be produced. And the administration is pushing for more executive-branch control of financial and non-financial firms. This is a radical series of interventions that will slow or reverse economic growth, distort economic activity, put more power in the hands of the federal government, the executive branch, and the White House itself, and restrict economic and political liberty.

Any radicalism in American politics today is not to be found in Obama’s alleged “socialism” but rather in the denial of reality by the Republican opposition.

Obama, if successful, will not be the first liberal or progressive president who saved capitalism from the excesses of its most fundamentalist practitioners and advocates. FDR did that in the 1930s and set the stage for a vibrant American capitalism, one whose benefits were shared widely by the citizenry. What is most stunning is not the boldness and reach of Obama’s effort to rescue the financial system, avoid a global depression and grapple seriously with looming problems in health care, energy and education but the ideological blinders of his severest critics. Obama’s approach is pragmatic, non-dogmatic, evidence-based and well within the tradition of American policy making in response to crises. Republican leaders are actually calling for spending freezes with aggregate demand dangerously low and deflation and depression a real possibility. I cannot recall in recent American history an opposition party embrace a policy path so out of touch and unresponsive to serious threats to the country’s security. Any radicalism in American politics today is not to be found in Obama’s alleged “socialism” but rather in the denial of reality by the Republican opposition.

Supporters of Obama's bloated budget-bot, disingenuously crafted to consume ever-increasing shares of the American economy as it replicates in coming years, always begin by mischaracterizing the American economy and previous federal budgets. There is nothing "cowboy" about our current combined federal, state and local tax marginal rate and double-taxation of estates, nor is there anything wild west about an economy in which nearly 45 percent of all spending is devoted to government and transfer payments, a share that has increased almost relentlessly since 1960. The productivity of the nation has fallen as government's growth crowded private investment from 21 percent of GDP to less than 15 percent. Socialism? We've had way too much of it already.

They also like to confuse the federal budget with the regulatory and monetary environment, as though Obama's spending plan means there will never be another economic crisis for another administration to manipulate as his plan does. Federal budgets had nothing to do with the balloons created by Barney Frank's letting Fannie Mae run wild and the Fed's throwing money from the windows. But then, why waste a crisis when there's an unrelated agenda to be imposed?

Obama and the people who crafted this budget either have no experience in creating jobs or managing a business or, like Warren Buffet, have enough money not to care about tax rates or the future of economic freedom. As a result, they probably see little to worry about if government came to be 50 or even 60 percent of national spending. In their inexperienced minds and the disenchanted Americans they have inflamed, it couldn't possibly be worse than what we have now.

My hope lies with people who never go to Washington except to see the monuments.

There is truth to this, but one has to wonder how much credibility the Republicans have. Bush started this lurch with his bailout. What is needed is not a debate about collectivism and capitalism, but how to change the capitalist paradigm. Big business will learn -and is already learning- to love the new corporate state. Who speaks for the independent entrepreneurs, in finance or elsewhere? Right now, no one.

The Republicans have no governing philosophy. The Democrats by nature are fractious and are natural allies to rent-seeking big businesses in everything from high-tech to urban land speculators. Yet Republicans are also close to some of these same people. The spirit of independent, grassroots capitalism is in sad shape, at least in the political world. My hope lies with people who never go to Washington except to see the monuments.

It seems that collective effort, indeed, the notion of unity, applies now only to one group of people - those engaged in federal government...

Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, talks about the critical importance of voluntary civic associations as the foundation of our society and the glue that holds people together to live and progress productively and harmoniously. Today, our busy lives and necessary
work habits to make ends meet remove the time we have to enter into those associations, thus leaving most of us without the Lions and Kiwanis clubs, a robust scouting program or even the local bowling league.

This is not a new theme of course, but the notion that collective American purpose can come from a budget that forces people in even greater numbers to look away from their community and toward government for their support networks, their financial solvency and their livelihood undermines what and who we are as a nation. Perhaps as he made clear during his European trip, Mr. Obama does not see the political distinction among countries, and so he really doesn't appreciate this fundamental strength of America - that people can and do associate freely across diverse lines to forge communities that
build up our collective purpose. This budget is not, as Arena's Joel Kotkin puts it, "a more managed, highly centralized form of cohabitation," because "cohabitation" implies voluntary support of the new "living" arrangement. David Frum is right when he says the
president is "forcing federal intrusion" to solve problems that he once said the American people were strong enough to solve together. It seems that collective effort, indeed, the notion of unity, applies now only to one group of people - those engaged in federal government, while the rest of us, well, we'll just have to continue bowling alone.

The President and the Democrats on Congress have exploited the financial crisis to advance their socialist big government tax, spend and borrow agenda. But for the excuse that, “emergency spending is necessary to starve off a total financial melt down”, they would never have had the “opportunity” to pass such life changing legislation. The President’s intrusion into the Corporate Board Room is more than a little disturbing. The fact that the President of the United States announced the firing of a CEO of America’s most iconic corporations is the most troubling. The Democrats have the perfect storm to make generational changes to our society. They have a President, a Senate, the House, and the power to reshape the Judiciary, and most importantly, they have the cover of a global financial crisis not seen since the Great Depression to blame all their deeds on. When the storm is over, the wreckage left behind by the Democrats will make Katrina look like a summer sun shower. The American People will then come to realize the need for “change” and will return the Republicans to power. The bad news is, we all must suffer through a very, very bad storm.

OF COURSE President Obama has proposed "the most significant shift toward collectivism and away from capitalism in the history of the Republic." Most days, the same commenters who are today chiding "nonsense" are a full-throated cheering section for a greater shift toward collectivism away from capitalism. At least Mr. Dworkin remains honest about that today (although not one of the columns - Coburn, Krauthammer, Frum - ever uses the word "socialism," contrary to Mr. Dworkin's comment. That allegation appears now to be the straw man mischaracterization of the conservative argument).

As I write, we have four comments up at the Arena: all four vigorously defend President Obama's very substantial interventions into the market. At least three if not all four suggest that we need more intervention and collectivism still. So when they say Obama is not promoting a shift toward collectivism, are they being supportive or critical of the President? Do they want more, or less? Regardless, there's no denying the direction the President wants to go, or the scope of his ambition.

Of course, there's nothing per se wrong with this. If you want less opportunity for individual initiative, if you want the government to interfere more in our lives, to take more of our wealth and freedom, to award more favors to the politically connected - hey, great, more power to ya. After all, what you offer in exchange - if one believes your policies will deliver - is pretty impressive: better health care, more economic security, etc. One can certainly argue that the unprecedented worldwide expansion of wealth over the past 30 years has nothing to do with the increased reliance on markets that began in the late 1970s, or (more reasonably) that even if it did, this increased reliance on markets has run its course. Maybe the liberal gang is right, and we should have a lot more collectivism, at least for a while. I'm not the most receptive guy to that point of view, but I don't rule it out. But that shouldn't prevent anyone from recognizing what is happening. OF COURSE that's what Obama is doing. Less reliance on capitalism and a shift toward collectivism is what Professors Skocpol and Zelizer, and Messrs. Baker and Dworkin have been arguing for here at the Arena day after day.

Come on, guys - have the courage of your convictions. I'm not afraid to say I want less government, and I'm happy to be accused of favoring a "shift toward capitalism and away from collectivism." That's what I want, darn right. Surely if we can describe the $2 trillion a year budget, the 70,000 pages a year in the federal register, the addition of a new cabinet department and a massive prescription drug entitlement, and the expansion of the federal civilian work force during the Bush years as, "anything goes, wild west capitalism," we can call the plans of the Obama administration "collectivism." Be proud of what you believe.

The cowboys don’t like it and are hurling “socialism!” against the wall in any way possible seeing what will stick.

Re Joel Kotkin’s observations ("Obama's collusive capitalism), I am reminded of regional American shifts in outlook from eastern Yankee to western Cowboy over the years. We’re now seeing a partial shift back to an earlier eastern sensibility. Europe is a focal point again, appropriate regulatory frameworks are being reconstructed, and “anything goes” wild west capitalism is being reconsidered.

The cowboys don’t like it and are hurling “socialism!” against the wall in any way possible seeing what will stick. The reason that won’t work (except with Republicans, who can’t win elections on their own) is that the epithet has lost its sting. What the critics hurl as charges are actually a feature, not a bug. Never mind that your socialistic roads, local schools, fire, police and health departments and military are functioning the way they always function. Americans realize that the existing social safety net is frayed and that everything from ‘socialized’ medicine (‘don’t touch my Medicare’) to ‘socialized’ capitalism (‘we need someone watching these guys who aren’t these guys’) is looking good.

That, of course, drives the critics nuts as they see Obama winning the issues argument (and the election), so the rhetoric gets ratcheted up - see Charles Krauthammer on any given day. But the polls are crystal clear on the issues... they prefer Obama’s approach but are worried about cost. Unfortunately, House GOP bumbling on the fake budget they proposed coupled with the previous Administration’s disastrous track record on getting us where we are has further weakened their already low credibility on the one issue (cost) that resonates with the public. What they should do is come up with decent ideas as to how to improve what’s going to pass, instead of saying no to everything. I don’t think they are there, yet. I don’t know if they’ll ever be there.

Collectivism? It is hard to characterize President Obama’s move this way. He has provided a massive bailout to the financial sector which essentially saves them from their poor decisions while placing all the risks on taxpayers. He has provided financial bailouts of struggling industries without directly taking them over. Rather he has asked them to accept certain actions if they want the help. And the budget is a bold progressive agenda but one which will leave most businesses alone and certainly allow wealthy Americans to keep on thriving. In fact there are many business leaders that will be more than happy controlling the costs of health care and taking part in a booming green economic sector. This looks much more like FDR than Karl Marx.

Senator Coburn's characterization is bunk -- and I don't think it is useful for media outlets including POLITICO to honor this kind of crudity and mindlessness by putting it up for "debate." This promotes false controversy far from the facts about the economy and the nuanced specifics of various government measures to further remedies the country really needs.

Senator Coburn and other Obama critics should spend more time focusing on substance rather than name-calling. They may have missed it, but their president gave the country the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama has no alternative to taking a more direct role in running the economy, because those running our largest firms did such an awful job.

In the case of the auto industry, President Obama had the option of letting the firms go bankrupt and then injecting massive amounts of government aid into the Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, or trying to keep these businesses afloat through the financial crisis. While keeping them afloat, the options are either giving them a blank check from the
taxpayers or setting conditions that the industry must meet. President Obama chose conditions, from his comments, Senator Coburn apparently prefers the blank check option.

Of course the real story here is that the Coburn crew prefer massive collectivism for the benefit of the rich. We got into this situation because the banks were allowed to operate with government insurance in the form of "too big to fail." There were apparently just fine with this enormous transfer of wealth from ordinary workers to the financial
industry.

It is unfortunate that the media take the silly name-calling of people like Senator Coburn seriously. It should be treated as silly name-calling by people who apparently lack the ability or willingness to make substantive arguments.

Edward Stroligo (guest)
Writer , NY:

I suppose that's technically accurate, but he says it like it's a bad thing. :) Seriously, Obama wants to turn the United States into Britain. Now you may not think that's the best idea in the world, but there's no point to try to make it sound like we wants to turn us into Cuba. More importantly, if you don't want to become Britain, you ought to spend less time calling him names and more time EXPLAINING how you'd turn the U.S. into something better than Britain. No matter what you think about Obama's solutions, you ought to acknowledge that he's identified the key long-term problems, problems that have been mostly neglected up to now. The Republicans need to provide different and better answers to these problems and explain, specifically, in detail, not just a few buzzwords, why their course of action is better.

Jonathan Wolfman (guest)
Writer/Editor; Retired Teacher , MD:

Senator Coburn's allegation that President Obama is leading America to socialism is the same irresponsible censure that has been thrown at Democratic presidents every time they have had to clean up Republican economic disasters subsequent to years of their deliberate, reckless and radical deregulation. The same was said of FDR after decades of wanton fiscal neglect that led to the worst economic Depression in collective memory and yet we all know that far from leading the United States into socialism, FDR's policies first saved and then rebuilt capitalist infrastructure, and stronger than ever. Every program that FDR and the then-Congress(es) passed, from the WPA, to the temporary closing of insolvent banks, to social security and medicare-- every single one-- was derided as socialism and fought against as fundamentally un-American by the remarkably short-sighted Senator Coburns of the day. And yet history has shown without question that the moves FDR made not only saved capitalism but strengthened our country militarily and culturally as well. Senator Coburn and like-minded Republicans would do better to get their own legistative act together instead of issuing mushy, inarticulate "budget alternatives" that even they themselves cannot agree on. He and his colleagues should be better readers of history before they try to smear Mr. Obama with out-dated opprobrium that has been shown to be utterly empty.

Stefan Saal (guest)
sculptor , NH:

In November 1994, the eminent management consultant Peter Drucker wrote an article in The Atlantic Monthly, entitled The Age of Social Transformation. It is available on-line at www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/soctrans.htm. Highly relevant to today's question.

Anthony Noel (guest)
business columnist , NC:

I say Sen. Coburn is exactly right - and if he doesn't like it, too bad. The people (those you represent, Mr. Senator - in case you forgot what you're doing in that office you inhabit [for now]) have rejected the do-business-now, ask-questions-later approach espoused by you and your cohorts lo these many years - just as they rejected it when the Roaring 20's came to their sheepish end. The long-term prosperity that followed should be all the proof we need that our democracy works best when democratic principles are applied in all areas of life, including commerce.
So if, Mr. Senator, you define collectivism as I do - no HUMAN left behind - let's hope we've learned the lesson in a lasting way this time around. Let's institute oversight that makes commerce work for EVERYONE. And let's vow to prevent the inevitable, thirty-years-hence attempts to erode that oversight - in favor of creating an environment in which all our citizens can see their hard work rewarded with lasting prosperity which cannot be threatened by the ill-advised (and illegal) practices of others.

Karl Knapstein (guest)
Service Tech , CO:

It's Ironic to me the vary people that spew the socialist (now its "collectivism") Rhetoric are mostly working for one Government agency or another. Our Governments, local ,State and Federal are Way too large and are a definite drain on our society. Try telling that to the 2 million newly unemployed or mother of three trying feed and house her children. Sen. Coburn at least has some Ideas, My hat's off to him. The AIG bailout is welfare for the Banks, Afghanistan is welfare for the Industrial Military Complex, Stimulus II is welfare for the states and big business and now for our own welfare we need a new and improved S.B.A., Affordable Health Care, Real Campaign Finance Reform and a strong and unwavering plan for Energy Independence. Third time's a Charm...........

Stefan Saal (guest)
sculptor , NH:

"Destruction and coming-to-be follow each other through the infinity of time. From the boundless come into being all the heavens and the worlds within them. And the source of all existing things is where destruction, too, happens, according to necessity; for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice according to the assessment of Time." -- the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximander (c. 600 BC). Time is measured by a pendulum of events. So it is with political events: When they reach a culminating extreme (as Republican-led conservatism did), things reverse course. Suddenly, they find themselves "out of power." Wishing to shorten the amplitude of the new pendulum swing, Krauthammer misses an essential point: Obama's quest is not merely for fairness, it is for balance.

Bruce Blevins (guest)
Auto Dealer Manager , MN:

Mr. Krauthammer's comment about Obama trying to narrow the divide between rich and poor is hopefully true, and oh so telling. One of the things that makes this economic period so perilous is the divide of which he speaks. Unprecedented, although the late twenties came close. If not adressed, any recovery will be temporary. Unfettered free-market agressive capitalism has never led to good times, except for the ownership/investment class. We have reached a tipping point where consumption may be permanently depressed. Democratic capitalism is the American model that works. Capitalism reigned in by regulation to protect the masses. Conservatives rightly feel that their power is under attack. I am not, however, hearing any solutions, or even acknowledgement that the system based on greed and corruption, focused on quarterly bottom lines, is at all flawed, or in any way responsible for our plight. Mr. Stecklers continued emphasis on business as the creator of jobs always ignores the demand side of job creation. If business taxes were zero, what business would expand without demand? he is also tossing out the inaccurate notion of double taxation in the estate tax, which sounds right, but in practice is not often true.

Based on his expertise and intelligence, I suspect he knows this, but likes the argument anyway. Collectivism, socialism, wealth redistribution are all buzz words that ignore our own traditions of progressive taxation, and providing for the weakest among us. The original intent of the thirteenth amendment was to tax wealthy people only, and only what was considered the "excess" amount of their income. Our tradition since then suggested that we pay taxes according to our ability to do so, and use government systems according to need. All government spending could be called socialist since we pay into a general fund, which is divided and redistributed to different people. In the last thirty years, an increasing benefit has gone to factions who could afford to pay for favors. Capitalism as practiced in the financial sector, seems willing to burn down its own house, if it can escape with the loot. If some conservatives want to trust in the inherent wisdom of that system, they may do so. Not me.

Stephen Mormino (guest)
Union Roofer , IL:

Government for the people by the people! These words have been made into a mockery to "WE THE PEOPLE", the checks and balances that make the Republic work "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION" seem to have vanished. The bills that have been passed and the policy this government have taken are against the constitution. Seems to, being an American, that all three branches of the government are corrupted and work with each other behind close doors to make change to this great nation. If History does tell the future, the way our nation is heading will have a dire effect on most Americans in loss of individualism and prosperity. The government has usurp the power from the people and it seems that they no longer work for the best interest of "WE THE PEOPLE". Folks we have lost total control of the government, for the people by the people, is no more.
GOD BLESS THE REPUBLIC

Nat Soti (guest)
Artist/Designer , IL:

Are we really truly debating the merits of "capitalism" vs. "socialism" vs. "collectivism" vs "individualism" or is this yet another coded debate for being "American" vs. "Un-American"? National pride is to be celebrated, but there is something wrong when every policy debate is overly obsessed with whether ideas are "American" enough. How can we be so insecure about our own identity that it infects every debate we have in this country?
Take health care as an example. Of course we should have vigorous debate over how to achieve quality, affordable, accessible health care but who cares whether a solution is "capitalist", "socialist", "collectivist" or "individualist"? Who cares whether we, god forbid, borrow ideas from other countries? Let's honestly evaluate the effectiveness of other models, but what does it's "Canadianess", "Britishness", "Europeaness", or for that matter "Americaness" have anything to do with creating the best health care system we can create?
Do you choose your doctor according to whether they subscribe to capitalism or socialism or whether they are "american" enough? Healthcare is not an "ism". Good health care is good health care period.
And yet we continue to have these unproductive "one size fits all" debates. The questions we should be asking ourselves is not whether something is capitalist or collectivist, but where can a capitalist approach help most and where can a more collective approach help - or how can we leverage the strengths of both approaches?

Patrick Northway (guest)
Acct/Finance , IN:

The Capitalism/Socialism debate by any other name is a great distraction for idiots and a wonderful tool for those in power and in possession of most of the wealth to keep it whether they have actually earned it or not. Has anyone in government complained about the huge transfer of wealth from poor to rich that's been going on for the past thirty some years? Hell, no! They benefit from concentrated power and government by inertia. The Obama Administration has changed NONE of this. With his "level-headed" call not to "govern from anger" any and all calls for responsibility on Wall Street have died. AIG executives not only should not be getting bonuses, they should be out on the street as should virtually every major executive and board member on Wall Street- BOA; Goldman Sachs; AIG; Merrill Lynch. This is not going to happen. The mark to market rules which have been about the only regulation NOT gutted by the Bush Administration have been "eased" on toxic assets ensuring Wall Street no longer has any hindrance of any kind. We now face the prospect of a permanently ensconced aristocracy and Obama has done nothing to change that. He fired Wagoner? Whoopee. That was an easy out and a distraction- if Obama was the reformer he says he is, he'd clear out Wall Street top to bottom. What's in YOUR wallet, Mr. President?

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
retired , TX:

Shift toward collectivism is putting it mild. President Obama is making the case that during a crisis capitalism should be replaced with government take over of banks and businesses. Furthermore, government should be able to take over businesses they think may fail in the future. Not to mention firing whoever they think is responsible for failing businesses. Using the crisis to introduce caps on pay is clearly not capitalism. At no time though has President Obama mentioned he will fire any Presidents of any Unions who will not accept concessions to save a business. President Obama made a statement once in an interview, we will listen and not dictate. President Obama had it wrong. He will listen and then dictate to reshape a country to his likings. There's a good reason President Obama is so loved in Europe. The Europeans sees a President with an European way of thinking instead of an American one. They see a President who will allow his country to accept all blame for all the wrongs of the world. They see a President who will take what hard working Americans have earned and give it to them, something the United Nations has trying to do for years as a tax on America for being a great nation of wealth. They see a President who believes in class warfare like the Europeans do. President Obama is clearly proving to Americans what's yours is mine and in the name of the crisis it's good for you. In President Obama's push for collectivism, he's using the computer to get Americans to help report fraud. Nothing can be accomplished if you don't have the backing of the people. What better way to take over the banks and businesses then to have the people take part in reporting fraud by contractors who you feel aren't doing the right job. President Obama is taking the people's mind off of what he is taking over and replacing with a sense of involvement from the people. All President Obama did was replace the brown armband with the computer. American's snitching on Americans for the government is an added benefit of collectivism in making the people feel what he's doing is the will of the people.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.